Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


But with ultimatums, aren't we just screaming in the wind? As I understand it, we now have another 20,000 troops, maximum, which are available. Can we make a viable threat vs. Syria and/or Iran with only 20,000 troops?

Er, our words are backed with nuclear weapons? Yeah, yeah - that's the ticket!

(edit - added quote)

[Bosh]

But I do see the only way we are going to win this in the future is to somehow stop the Syrians and the Iranians from supporting the insurgency. Both of them are doing everything they can to destabilize Iraq and to get the United States to leave. I think we have to go through the recommended diplomatic effort, and when that fails, as even the commissioners expect the diplomacy to fail, we have to go to United Nations to seek sanctions on the respective countries for undermining a UN-authorized occupation and the government of a member nation. If that in fact fails, then and only then would I suggest that we consider our other options which may include issuing ultimatums to the respective countries, perhaps one at a time, Syria first.

Yes but how the hell is the US going to pull that off? Putting aside my views that Iraq would still be FUBAR without Syria and Iran doing anything:
1. You acknowledge that diplomacy isn't going to work.
2. With your views about the UN, you probably think that going through the UN isn't going to work.
3. The US can't make credible ultimatums against Iran and Syria. What exactly could we credibly threaten?

So if none of that works, what chance of victory is there?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


It's nigh impossible to take the wind out of wind bag's sails.

Well, give me half of a brownie for good effort at least.

[Ned]

Bosh, the UN effort may work. I would not abandon the effort before that juncture.

As to troops, etc., well we do need a larger army. I have already said that. What we have now is insufficient for any application as we do not have enough to both defeat and occuppy any likely foe, Iraq aside. Iraq has proven this.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Ned
the Democrats were right in the first-place.

Anybody have room for this sig material?

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Ned
Bosh, the UN effort may work. I would not abandon the effort before that juncture.

Th problem with a UN effort is that this Administration headed into Iraq by, first, lying to the UN (remember poor Colin Powell's dog-and-pony show) and then flipping them the bird when they wouldn't authorize an invasion. Going back to the UN now would require an almost superhuman act of supplication and abject apology.

And that would be entirely appropriate. But do you really see it coming from this president?

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Drogue
Surely if the statement is so absurd, you'd find out where it's wrong. Yes, there is a difference between a tyrannical dictatorship and a weak government trying to develop. It's called anarchy, and as all civ players know, it happens every time you change governments. The report is exactly right in that we've gone from a tyrannical dictatorship to anarchy.

Obviously 2007 is the next oedo year.

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Darius871





Anybody have room for this sig material?

Tempting. Tempting.

-Arrian

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ned, although some Senators did indeed say we needed more troops most of the objections came from the military itself which the administration ignored or sidelined. Sheshiki originally said it would take 500,000 troops to invade and then effectively control Iraq Rumsfield & Cheney called that "unimaginative" and showed Shensiki the door. Rumsfield and Cheney then went with their own plan of 150,000 troops for the invasion and didn't worry about the actual occupation.

This administration has always ignored and over ruled the military commanders so many of us get pissed off when Bush keeps claiming he's just following the advice of the military commanders. They've gotten rid of the independent thinkers like Shensiki and replaced them with worthless yes-men.

That's because Shensiki was wrong about needing 500k to invade. That is already proven fact. He was also wrong about needing 500k to effectively control Iraq.

First, the rules of engagement in an OOTW preclude "effective control" of this situation. Second, as long as radicals are willing to die, as long as they seek victory for their side at any cost, there is no way to stop them all, or even a large fraction of them.

The absolute best we can do, as an occupying force, is kill the bastards when they pop their heads up. It is up to the civilian populace to either tolerate the radicals or condemn and fight them from within. No single side can do even that. The Sunnis won't listen to Shi'ites and vv.

The end of Saddam would've looked like this no matter how or when it happened. The difference is that this way gives them a credible option for a peaceful restructuring, instead of fighting to the last man.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Re: Such smugness, arrogance ...such insufferable moral superiority.

Originally posted by Ned
"In all my time in Washington I've never seen such smugness, arrogance, or such insufferable moral superiority. Self-congratulatory. Full of itself. Horrible."

Bill Bennet's opinion about the Iraq Surrender Report commissioners. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-...posts?page=101


Clearly, Secretary Baker (and his sponsor, Bush '41) have lost or are losing favor with the Right. But, Bush owes Baker a lot -- his election. What is he to do now? Say FU to Baker and implicity to his dad? What a pickle!

Insufferable moral superiority? Full of itself? Bill Bennett, our former chain-smoking, whiskey drunk drug czar and now self-appointed prophet for the right? Pot, bump into kettle in the bottom of a ****in' coal mine.

Surrender Report, my ass. At least some people realize that once you unnecessarily stick your dick into a hornet's nest, "stay the course" isn't a viable option.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Straybow
That's because Shensiki was wrong about needing 500k to invade. That is already proven fact. He was also wrong about needing 500k to effectively control Iraq.

Not necessarily in either count. Yes, you can invade, ignore security of supply lines and fail to establish effective control over a majority of the country - all those arms caches, supply points, and points of entry for foreign *******s which we never effectively secured.

Since there's no effective control over Iraq four years into the FUBAR, it's far from obvious that 500k was not needed. We could have been in a much stronger interdiction and disruption posture from the beginning, instead of waiting a year and a half plus to scrape troops from elsewhere to deal with problems like Fallujah.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ogie Oglethorpe


Please reference ongoing (almost every thread discussion where in one of either DanS, Rah, Kuci, myself, et al point out that Dems are equally bad only to have Oerdin defend their good name in comparative contrast to Repugs.

As far as the other side all sweetness and light comments, I believe I made sure in every post to reference a comparatively speaking comment.

You're a dunce, Ogie. My position has always been that neither party is great but that the Republicans are absolutely in a league of their own when it comes to harming this nation for their own political gain. That in no way means the other side is "a white as the driven snow" but it does mean they are a lesser of two evils. Much less then the current evil.

Feel free to continue to lie and distort though. I realize that is all you ever do.

[Ned]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Not necessarily in either count. Yes, you can invade, ignore security of supply lines and fail to establish effective control over a majority of the country - all those arms caches, supply points, and points of entry for foreign *******s which we never effectively secured.

Since there's no effective control over Iraq four years into the FUBAR, it's far from obvious that 500k was not needed. We could have been in a much stronger interdiction and disruption posture from the beginning, instead of waiting a year and a half plus to scrape troops from elsewhere to deal with problems like Fallujah.

Spot on.

Which is why I believe we need a larger army now and for the future. We have enough to win marginal victories, but not to occuppy and pacify anybody. Such is NOT a war winning army.

BTW, hows the former USSR doing in Chechnya? Haven't heard a thing for some time, meaning their occuppation must be doing somewhat better than ours.

[Bosh]

Which is why I believe we need a larger army now and for the future.

How?
We're having serious recruiting problems maintaining the army we already have.

All of the things that you offer as solutions to the problems in Iraq (this, the UN getting Iran and Syria to do what we want, etc.) don't seem very likely...

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly


Th problem with a UN effort is that this Administration headed into Iraq by, first, lying to the UN (remember poor Colin Powell's dog-and-pony show) and then flipping them the bird when they wouldn't authorize an invasion. Going back to the UN now would require an almost superhuman act of supplication and abject apology.

And that would be entirely appropriate. But do you really see it coming from this president?

And then there's the problem that someone forgot to lace the water supply at the UN with PCP and LSD. No one at the UN is crazy enough to want a taste of that sweet Iraq action.